Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral detail: it returns top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas, and says results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't describe pagination or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than strictly necessary but each sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, return format, and a 'call first' heuristic. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words, though the domain list is somewhat lengthy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a discovery/meta tool with no output schema, the description is self-sufficient: it explains what results look like (names, descriptions, full schemas), addresses why you would use it first, and lists the covered domains. Given the low complexity of parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and all aliases (q, task, search, description). The description reinforces the query parameter's purpose but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own detailed parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Find tools by describing the data or task." It distinguishes this meta-tool from the many domain-specific siblings by clearly stating its role: browse/search/discover what tools exist for a broad list of domains. This is immediately clear and differentiates it from tools like query_table or validate_claim.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states when to use it: "Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist" and gives an explicit sequencing directive: "Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer)." It does not name specific alternatives but implicitly contrasts with calling a single tool directly, and the sibling list provides the alternative set.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.